Friday, August 26, 2011

Jake at Page One makes fun today of Indiana State Rep. Phil Hinkle, who was caught with a male gay prostitute but who, despite this, claims he's not gay.

Pretty preposterous. In fact, it's almost as preposterous as the people who have been arguing that the priests involved in the sex abuse scandal who were abusing post-pubescent boys (which was the majority of them) were not gay.

5 comments:

Were these boys, or sexually mature teens? Using "post-pubescent boys" is somewhat unclear?

Also, sexual abusers use targets of opportunity. Prison rapists are often straight, for example. Since there are no altar girls, if the priest in question was atracted to the child by a lack of masculine characteristics, then the priest was not gay.

That siad, I have no doubt there were many gay priests, and that a small percentage of them abused teens. After all, it's much easier to feel a calling to the priesthood when you have no calling to be married.

I think you're a little behind the times there. Formally speaking anyone who serves in the capacity once deemed the role of "altar boy" is now called an "alter server," and there are a lot of girls serving in that capacity.

'Were these boys, or sexually mature teens? Using "post-pubescent boys" is somewhat unclear?'

OneBrow, I am pretty sure the study Martin is taking his numbers from is that comissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and based on only information provided by the Church (and about as reliable).

For the epurpose of this study, a 'post-pubescent child' was defined as a child older than nine years old. Yes, you read correctly. In order to be able to fudge the numbers on pedophilia, they changed the medically accepted definition of what constitutes a post-pubescent child from 13 to 10.

I quote:

'The researchers define pedophilia as abuse of anyone 10 or under, and by that definition, only 22 percent of the cases fall in that category. But McKiernan notes that the American Psychiatric Association puts the line at anyone under 14.

"And in fact," McKiernan says, "when you draw the line in the correct place, it turns out that 60 percent of the victims were aged 13 or younger. In other words, 60 percent of the victims were victims of pedophile abuse."'

And even though the study is a transparent attempt at blaming others for what the church did wrong, it specifically states that homosexuality was bot to blame:

'The John Jay study rejects two common attempts to explain the outbreak of sexual abuse: the liberal claim that celibacy is responsible and the conservative suspicion that homosexual priests are to blame. In fact, the John Jay report notes, the incidence of sexual abuse began to decrease in the late 1970s, at a time when--according to the study--the number of homosexual priests was rising. Thus the report finds that an increasing acceptance of homosexual priests was associated with "a decreased incidence of abuse--not an increased incidence of abuse."

The Causes and Context report concludes that the overwhelming preponderance of young male victims reflects the fact that abusive priests had more access to boys than girls.'

But you've got to understand that any excuse is good enough for blaming homosexuals. So when a good Catholic apologist wants to do so, he doesn't read objective reports or the study itself, he relies on the propaganda he is fed by someone like excuse-monger George Weigel:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/267600

If making excuses for the church means you have to change the definition of what constitutes a child, then that's just what you gotta do.

The study also praises the efforts made by the Church to curb the child abuse problem. According to it, they are apparently doing a spiffing job, just spiffing.

To see exactly how spiffing, here's a good example from a May 15th news report:

'A Roman Catholic bishop has been found guilty of importing child pornography in a case that has sent shockwaves through Canada and the Church.

Bishop Raymond Lahey was stopped at Ottawa Airport after border guards found 588 images and dozens of videos of naked boys as young as eight on his computer and phone.The bishop’s crimes are especially shocking for Canadians because Lahey was the public face of an historic apology and $15million (£8million) settlement for victims of sexual molestation by a priest in his diocese.'

So you see, a sign of cracking down on child abuse is when the Bishops in charge of negotiating settlements with child abuse victims is a pedophile himself. Good thing the church delivered the guy to justice...